Fellow Americans, you are financing Nazi-sympathizing killers in Ukraine!

Fellow Americans, you are financing Nazi sympathizing killers in Ukraine!

 

By Don Hank

Yesterday I shared with my internet group my research (since posted) on the Donbass-Lugansk (Novorossia) seizure of Ukrainian oligarchs’ production facilities in E. Ukraine in response to a Kiev-led blockade that is both illegal and a blatant violation of the Minsk accords. Naturally, the bottom feeding elites in Europe and the US keep blaming Russia even though Kiev has been shelling civilians in E. Ukraine for years! BUT Russia is not a signatory to the Minsk accords and has no responsibility here. Secondly, the OSCE, responsible for monitoring the situation in that region, has never had the guts to act on its own information and hold the West to account. They know that Kiev (Poroshenko’s government, now collapsing) is responsible for the murder of civilians because they live in that area, and if you read even their reports, it is obvious who is violating the accords daily and has been since the beginning. Consequently, due to their irresponsible inaction—ie, failure to report to the press and governments, the US Congress can send lethal aid to these criminals and you don’t know enough to protest. Many of you just assume the Russians are “aggressive” when in fact their people have been dying at the hands of an evil regime and are not allowed to fight back with all their resources lest they be accused of aggression (defending themselves) in the Western kangaroo court of public opinion.

This research was hard going for me because I badly needed updating on this situation and it took me most of the afternoon to get a reasonable grasp of it.

Judging by how hard it was for me to understand, I can sympathize with those who are still struggling with the issue. But it is hard to sympathize with those who have unquestioningly drunk the Kool-Aid dispensed by the US Congress and our deplorable biased media and have sat by and allowed their tax dollars to go toward murdering innocents without protesting vigorously to their Congress person.

I have posted sitreps from our friend Irina Burya for many months now (novorossia.vision/en) and many of you are aware of the gruesome shelling of civilians, the invasion and takeover of swaths of territory declared as neutral by Minsk, etc. You know that the US is guilty as sin of sending lethal aid to a bunch of Nazi sympathizers.

I am still shocked that so many Americans are ignoring this issue that the US Congress can find it politically possible to finance these Nazi sympathizers with your money. This would never happen if everyone did their homework. As a rule of thumb, the US has been killing good and innocent civilians for the last 60 yrs or so (on behalf of the Russophobic Saudi dictatorship) and Americans have snoozed thru it. NOW is the time to WAKE UP and tell your Congress critter to stop voting for this or you will stop voting for him, her or it! And for God’s sake, please forward this message.

But if there are any who haven’t quite grasped this yet, this article should help:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11025137/Ukraine-crisis-the-neo-Nazi-brigade-fighting-pro-Russian-separatists.html
Here is the latest on this disgusting situation.

https://www.rt.com/news/379539-ukraine-lvov-torch-lit-march/

 

What you “know” about Aleppo is not true

Aleppo war hypocrisy uncovered

translation and commentary by Don Hank

Featured below is my translation of an article on the site of Movimento 5 Stelle (m5s), an increasingly popular anti-Establishment party which, if it comes to power in the vacuum created by Prime Minister Renzi’s resignation, is likely to take Italy out of the euro. Unlike the UK, whose leaders tenaciously still cling to the EU following the Brexit, Italy’s exit from the euro could be more brusque and throw the EU into a tailspin. Of the major anti-elite parties in the EU core countries, m5s is the boldest, most astute and most brutally honest in its critical analysis of western military and foreign policy. The article below should be book-marked for reference because it lists casualty estimates for the “good” war in Mosul and the “bad” war in Aleppo and shows that the numbers of civilians killed in US-waged wars and the Israeli conflicts with Palestine are extremely high, making Western criticism of Russia and the Syrian government look hypocritical. The article does not list the casualties in Aleppo simply because we hear or read about these every day thanks to the media dutiful reporting them in a tone clearly condemnatory of Russia (and Assad), as if only Russian wars entailed collateral damage.  This article sets the record straight, highlighting the rank hypocrisy of the US and allies.

I took the trouble to investigate independently the casualty statistics listed by Fulvio Scaglione in his article below. Here are links to 3 months of UN figures cited:

http://www.iraqinews.com/features/unami-announces-death-toll-iraq-september/

http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/un-casualty-figures-iraq-month-october-2016-enar

http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/un-casualty-figures-iraq-month-october-2016-enar

Not all of the deaths can be attributed directly to US intervention. However, ISIS and its opponents killed a very large number of people as a result of the Obama administration’s refusal to prevent ISIS from entering the towns and cities. He did, however, provide arms to “moderate” terrorists in Syria.

While many conservatives take a dim view of the UN, this organization is the only one providing data of t his kind. Without the UN, the world would be reliant mostly on biased data from outlets loyal to the US government that caused  much of the suffering.

Sadly, from my personal association with prominent and less prominent Brexit activists I have seen that only a minority of them understand that declaring their independence from the EU is only half the battle. They seem unaware that the real enemies are the US and NATO, which constantly beat the war drums against Russia and Assad, despite their own illegal and failed invasions in the Middle East, Ukraine and Kosovo, which leave the world infinitely less safe than before their interventions.

I receive alerts from the main anti-EU parties and after reading their literature, for years in some cases, I would rank them as follows in terms of their grasp of the geopolitical reality, particularly regarding US-waged wars. From most aware to least aware, they are:

Movimento 5 Stelle (m5s) (founded by Beppe Grillo. they will field a candidate for prime minister)

Front National  (founded by Marine LePen, who is eyeing a run for president of France)

Partij voor de Vrijhijd /Freedom Party (founded by Geert Wilders, who is eying a run for prime minister of Holland)

I am not including UKIP (UK Independent Party) in this list because Brits are split on their feelings toward the Atlanticist Establishment; while UKIP was instrumental in bringing about the exit of the UK from the EU, they were only one of several influential groups in that endeavor.   I would put Nigel Farage personally high on the list, because he is in line with Donald Trump – willing to deal with, rather than demonize, the Russians and Syrians. He has in fact traveled to the US to endorse Trump. However, the Brexit groups are divided with regard to remaining in NATO. Some think NATO is necessary for “defence,” despite the fact that all of NATO’s actions in recent years have been offensive and have violated international law regarding sovereignty of states. I also am not including the AfD because there is, at this point, virtually no chance that Germany will exit the EU any time soon.

 

http://www.beppegrillo.it/2016/12/la_guerra_di_aleppo_non_e_solo_come_ve_la_raccontano.html

What they’re not telling you about the war in Aleppo

Movimento 5 Stelle /5 Star Movement   The blog of the stars

by Fulvio Scaglione for TPI

The battle of Aleppo, with the bloodshed of recent days and the terrible years that preceded them, marked among other things the collapse of the Western information system , which is almost indistinguishable from partisan propaganda at this point. Everything in the Western narrative about Aleppo smacks of fraud and deceit. Since the publication of unfiltered and unverified data provided by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, founded and headed by an adversary of Bashar al-Assad and maintained by the British government, the word “siege” has been applied liberally for Aleppo but only in recent months, and never in the over three years that the city was attacked from three sides by rebels and jihadis, who came to occupy 60 percent of the urban territory.

But in a way, these are small details. The real issue is the refusal to confront a reality which can be summarized as: what happened in Aleppo in recent weeks is not at all exceptional. On the contrary, it is the norm of contemporary war. Don’t believe us? Then let’s have a look around. Take Mosul, the largest Iraqi city, which has been occupied by ISIS for two and a half years.

In mid-October the offensive to free it from the jihadists got underway (finally). Great fanfare, triumphant tones, exultation for civilians who “were being freed” from areas previously under the control of militants (while civilians in Aleppo who come from the neighborhoods dominated by al-Nusra Front, are not liberated but rather “escape”). Now, two months later, everything has come to a standstill and no one is talking about liberating Mosul. Not only that, the offensive by Americans, Kurds and Iraqis has been halted to such an extent that ISIS has removed 4-5 thousand fighters from the Iraqi front and sent them to retake Palmyra in Syria. Why?

The answer is very simple. The two and a half years of grueling bombing campaign gave ISIS plenty of time to organize the defenses in the city. The roads were mined or boarded up or replaced by galleries known only to the militia fighters. Some buildings were demolished to clear lines of fire; elsewhere walls were built to block the lines of fire and passage of the attackers. Finally, thousands of civilians were trapped to be used as human shields.

To be “liberated” Mosul will have to become another Aleppo: the bombings, civilian casualties, children torn apart by the strikes, and so on. There is an alternative, namely, house to house combat with hundreds and hundreds of dead Iraqis and Kurds — which has already been going on, even if military operations are almost at a standstill.

The UN Mission for assistance to Iraq (UNAMI), directed by Jan Kubis, former Foreign Minister of Slovakia (2006-2009), has made available mind-boggling data on the number of Iraqi deaths, civilian and other, of the last few months. In September, ie before the offensive on Mosul, the number of Iraqi civilians killed was 609 (951 injured); the number rose to 1,120 (with 1,005 injured) in October and to 926 (930 injured) in November.

As for the military and other combatants, the figures are: 394 killed (208 injured) in September, 672 killed (353 injured) in October, 1959 killed (and 450 injured) in November. Result? Everything blocked, meaning further suffering for imprisoned civilians in Mosul and more time for ISIS to continue building up.

Of course, nouveaux philosophes [a group similar to the Neocons in the US—Don Hank] and other clowns can harp on atrocities and human rights violations in Aleppo. But they are nothing but hypocrites. In 2004, the US Army fought two battles to “liberate” the Iraqi city of Fallujah, in fact occupied by the militants of al-Qaeda, the forerunners of the militants of al-Nusra, which play such an important role in the battle of Aleppo.

According to the independent NGO Iraq Body Count, between 572 and 616 civilians died in the first battle (April 2004); between 581 and 670 died in the second (November 2004) battle. The Americans used phosphorus arms and apparently depleted uranium. Have you ever heard of any new philosophers rending their garments over this? Do you recall Corriere de Sera [an establishment newspaper–Don] ever mentioning “slaughterhouse” in headlines about Fallujah, as it did referring to Aleppo?

 

And what about Gaza? According to the most conservative data, which are those published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, only 45 percent of the 2,100 Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip during the 2014 war were real civilians and non-combatants. That’s still 945 unarmed people killed in two months of clashes.

Thus it was the very countries that now cry foul over the Aleppo operations, that block motions censure Israel at the UN.  And isn’t Gaza a perfect copy of the eastern districts of Aleppo, attacked with bombs by the Russians and by Assad’s Syrians?

And yet UNICEF has informed us that in the first six months of 2016, Afghanistan had a record number of civilian casualties: 1,601 dead and 3,565 wounded. The worst half-year since the anti-Taliban invasion in 2001. According to UN estimates, 60 percent of Afghan civilians are vulnerable to attack by the Taliban and other insurgent groups and criminals.

But 40 percent of 1,601 deaths is still 640 deaths, or 640 innocent Afghans killed in six months (more than 3 per day) by troops arriving from our countries, that is, by those who are supposed to be protecting and “liberating” them. But everyone is silent; these dead do not deserve the indignation reserved for the dead of eastern  Aleppo.

Thus the war of our times is utterly disgusting. Those who pretend to believe that in Chechnya and Aleppo different things were done than elsewhere, for example in Fallujah or Gaza, are quite simply lying. All of today’s wars are fought on the backs of civilians. All of them.

And in all wars, the armed men, with or without uniforms, are, at the most, collateral victims. Politicians, military people and terrorists know this quite well. So the real issue is to avoid wars as much as possible, not to pretend that there are good wars and bad wars.

(translation from the Italian by Don Hank)

 

E. Ukraine sitrep. The msm won’t tell you this

E. Ukraine sitrep. The fight for survival in Novorossia

Essentially, Eastern Ukraine, where most people speak Russian, is considered an illegitimate political entity by virtue of the fact that the people consider themselves Russian. The motive is naked racism. It’s like a Kafka novel where Amerika (the name of one of his novels in fact) has returned to Europe, this time to assist the Nazis in implementing their nefarious plans. It is a slap in the face to every US veteran, especially those who fought in WW II, to the memory of the fallen heroes of that war. and a mockery of the Holocaust.

Incredibly, almost all GOP presidential candidates (Trump was a notable exception) favored US arms to aid the Ukraine government in killing E. Ukrainians, although most of the casualties so far have been civilians. No wonder Trump accused Jeb Bush of just wanting to “kill people.” That comment was right on target.

Thanks to a media blackout on the Ukraine conflict, only blogs provide a window for us. One such blog is Novorossia Vision, hosted by the courageous Irina Burya, who sends me alerts. Some of this would be covered by Russia Insider but that site is on partial vacation during August.

Link:

http://novorossia.vision/en/ukrainian-deserters-kill-their-commanders-kiev-encourages-attack-financially-dpr-warns-about-resuming-hostilities/

By way of background, let me explain some of the terms used in this blog:

“Nationalist” fighters on the US-backed side include the Azov Batallion, some members of which are sympathetic to the neo-Nazis (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion, and pay special attention to the section titled Neo-Nazi Ideology and Symbols) . Some actually wear neo-Nazi logos such as the swastika and the Wolfsangel, an early symbol used by the German Nazis (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfsangel). The US congress in 2015 decided against training Azov members, but in reality, no arms sent to Ukraine can be prevented from falling into their hands since they are welcomed as volunteers by the Kiev government. US Neocons are fine with this, just as they seem unfazed by the transfer of US arms from the Syrian “rebels” to ISIS. Will Hillary allow open arms shipments to Azov? As I keep saying, Hillary’s anti-Russian warlike stance makes her extremely dangerous but most Americans by far simply don’t know or care that our next election results could signal a prelude to a nuclear WW III.

I need to make a comment here. Neocon web sites like AIM (Accuracy in Media) are publishing anti-Trump articles and some of the Neoconservative commentators on their forum are actually hinting that they want Hillary to win. It is clear to me that Cliff Kincaid leans toward Hillary as well, even though he claims to be a conservative. That should surprise no one since Trump’s pragmatic and rational position on Russia is anathema to the Neocons, and Hillary’s warlike stance is right in line with them. The future of our planet is in the balance and guys like Cliffy are pushing for a war that threatens all of humanity – claiming that Trump is “soft” on Russia. If the war happens, they will, of course, blame the level-headed rational people who warned about this, not themselves. Their position is Amerika über Alles and they will fight to the last other people’s kid. There is just no disguising the ultranationalism here and I am more than alarmed by this. Clearly, WW II taught us exactly nothing.

Think about it.  The Nazis are active in Europe once more only this time, the US government is basically on their side against Russia, the country that killed 4 times more Nazis than all other allies combined and without which the allies may not have won WW II. Is this not what most people would call going over to the dark side?

DPR: Donetsk People’s Republic

LPR: Lugansk People’s Republic

LDPR: Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republic

AFU: Armed Forces of Ukraine (the failed government supported by the US, although in reality, the EU will almost surely never admit the bankrupt Ukraine into their midst as things now stand). If it were not for false pride, Washington would admit it erred gravely by supporting the bloody Maidan coup and would walk away from this quagmire. Instead it will add insult to injury and send arms to this bumbling corrupt government only to kill more civilians, as shown by the sitrep linked and partially pasted below.

Finally to locate the Donetsk and Lugansk (Luhansk in Urkainian) regions on the map, click here. They are small in size but if push came to shove, the Hillary administration would be happy to send your only son to die there to enable  the US to lose still another war.

http://novorossia.vision/en/ukrainian-deserters-kill-their-commanders-kiev-encourages-attack-financially-dpr-warns-about-resuming-hostilities/

Ukrainian Deserters Kill Their Commanders – Kiev Encourages Attack Financially – DPR Warns About Resuming Hostilities

In July 2016 Alexander Turchynov, the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) of Ukraine, announced the possibility of imposition of martial law in the country on August 1st. It was not the first time that such a threat sounded and, like the previous ones, it remained unrealized. However, Kiev continued to increase the intensity of the attacks on the territory of the Republic, which had already grown dramatically at the end of the past week, after the completion of the Contact Group negotiations in Minsk.

At night from July 31 to August 1st, the Ukrainian military opened heavy fire on Yasinovataya, situated between Donetsk and Gorlovka, and the north-western outskirts of Donetsk. According to the DPR Defense Ministry, the fire on localities of the Republic was opened more than 800 times, with over 100 rounds from the 122 and 152mm artillery.

The local authorities reported that 14 houses had been damaged by artillery fire. In Yasinovataya one of the shells hit the yard of a house, with one civilian killed and another wounded in the explosion and subsequent fire. There were also wounded two DPR soldiers.

After the shelling, according to the DPR soldiers, cannons started to explode on the positions of the Ukrainian howitzer battery responsible for the attack.

According to the DPR Defense Ministry, all the days that followed, the intensity of attacks on the Ukrainian side ranged from 500 to 900 rounds per day, with a quarter of them made from heavy artillery. The all three directions were under attack: Gorlovka in the north of the Republic, Donetsk in the center and Dokuchaevsk in the south of the DPR.

As a result of the bombardments, four civilians were wounded, two of them in Donetsk.

The bombardments also caused the further destruction of residential areas and infrastructure. The local authorities reported that, from 1 to 4 August, 2016, 36 residential houses were damaged in the DPR frontline localities. There were also damaged power lines on the western outskirts of Donetsk and at the Donetsk filter plant, resulting about 900 homes left without electricity in one of the city districts, and the water supply stopped in another two districts, as well as in Yasinovataya and Kiev-controlled Avdeevka.

The DPR army, according to the command, lost, for the first four days of August, two soldiers killed.

In July 2016, the official losses of the DPR army amounted to 11 soldiers killed and 21 wounded; among civilians, the Republic lost one person killed and 25 wounded.

The official losses of the Ukrainian army in July, according to the press service of the ATO Staff, totaled 40 men killed and 182 wounded. At the same time, the Ukrainian public organization “Sisters of Mercy” reported that in July, only one hospital in Kharkov received over 300 wounded.

Kiev has already openly admitted that a significant part of Ukrainian losses are non-combat. According to the DPR intelligence, only in the last four days, the Ukrainian army lost two soldiers dead and three wounded in the front segment to the west of Donetsk, due to the detonation of a 120mm mortar shell, caused by violation of safety requirements. In addition, due to an error in the spotting of the fire, one of the Ukrainian Army units shelled another, with the latter having lost over 20 men killed and wounded.

In addition, the DPR intelligence sources on the ground reported that, due to the overcrowding of the Ukrainian military in the Donetsk segment of the front, there occurred an outbreak of dysentery. Only in the past three days, over 50 soldiers were sent to nearby hospitals. Apparently, the situation with the epidemic is worsening, because the AFU command have sent epidemiologists to the Donetsk segment of the front.

As a result, the number of deserters in the Ukrainian army has recently increased dramatically. The DPR intelligence reported that, in the first three days of August, 10 Ukrainian soldiers left their positions on the front line, taking their weapons with them. Another three, when officers tried to stop them, killed one of them and wounded another.

From the LPR also come reports about the deterioration of the situation on the contact line, which was hitherto considerably calmer than in the DPR. Soldiers of the Republican army attribute this fact to the replacement of the AFU units on the front line with nationalist battalions. As a result, there dramatically increased the number of attacks on the territory of the Republic, during which the Ukrainian side again began to use infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, anti-aircraft systems, as well as heavy artillery.

In particular, at night from 1 to 2 August, the LPR near front town of Stakhanov was shelled with 152mm artillery. According to witnesses, one of the shells hit the courtyard of a residential house, which resulted in three civilians wounded. The condition of one of them is still assessed by doctors as severe.

In addition, soldiers of the LPR army reported constant provocation from the Ukrainian military. In particular, the Ukrainian subversive groups enter the LPR territory and hang there flags of Ukraine and the “Right Sector”. These actions may aim at luring the LPR soldiers out, in order to open sniper fire on them while they are removing the flags, or at creating scenery for the Kiev media reporting the next ‘liberated piece of Ukrainian land’.

Meanwhile, the LPR soldiers firmly declared that any attempts of the Ukrainian military to seize parts of the “grey” zone are decidedly repressed.

Soldiers of the Republican armies have repeatedly pointed out that, during the shelling, the target of the Ukrainian side is much more likely to be residential areas of Donbass than their position. The same policy of terror is applied by Kiev to both areas controlled by its army and entry and exit checkpoints on the contact line.

Local residents report that at checkpoints, which are closed at nightfall, the Ukrainian military force them to spend the night in the buffer zone, not letting them pass to Ukraine and, at the same time, forbidding them to come back for the night to the territory of the Republics. At night, the Ukrainian side starts shelling the LDPR, hiding behind civilians as a living shield. Last week, a woman received shrapnel wounds at one of these checkpoints in the Gorlovka area.

Residents of one of the front-line villages in the Lugansk region inform that they try not to go out after 3 pm, especially after the AFU military were replaced with volunteer battalions. Nationalists, usually drunk, stop people in the streets, ask them provocative questions and can beat a person looking at them ‘without due respect’.

Two days ago, the OSCE monitoring mission stated that their employees, going for an inspection in one of the AFU units, had been stopped by drunken Ukrainian military. Threatening the international observers with weapons, the Ukrainians forbade them to travel further and forced them to go back.

Massive attacks by the Ukrainian army on the DPR localities at the end of July 2016 caused such extensive destruction that the OSCE mission demanded in its report an investigation and punishment for those responsible. The investigation revealed that the AFU commanders on the front line are entitled to personally make the decision to open fire according to the situation. At the same time, in those days when the Ukrainian military come under return fire, Kiev pays them combat bonus to salary.

At the same time, at the negotiations in Minsk, the sides failed to agree on the issue of weapons withdrawal from the contact line for the distance defined in the Minsk Agreements, as the Ukrainian side claimed not to have sufficient authority.

Moreover, Kiev still continues to deliver to the front line weapons and equipment. According to the DPR intelligence, in just the past three days, the Ukrainian units in the Donetsk and Gorlovka directions received up to 20 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, 6 152mm motorized artillery systems “Akatsia”, 5 122mm howitzers D-30, 15 tanks and about 20 120mm mortars.

Two days ago, the Ukrainian military authorities reported that NATO countries had provided Ukraine with EUR 1 million worth demining equipment as logistical support under the program “Science for Peace and Security».

After the fruitless negotiations in Minsk, Denis Pushilin, the DPR representative in the Contact Group, made an official statement, which says that if at least the first three points of the Minsk Agreements, namely, complete cease-fire, the withdrawal of weapons and the OSCE supervision of it, are not implemented, the hostilities will resume in Donbass through the fault of Kiev.

The same day, the head of the press service of the General Staff of Armed Forces of Ukraine announced that the General Staff already has an ‘adequate response plan’ to react to ‘an attack aiming at expanding the territory’, the preparation of which in the Republics the head of the Defense Ministry intelligence of Ukraine had announced earlier.

http://novorossia.vision/en/another-delivery-of-american-weapons-nazis-boasting-their-attacks-hotline-to-denounce-dpr-residents/

Another Delivery of American Weapons – Nazis Boasting Their Attacks – Hotline to Denounce DPR Residents

The negotiations in Minsk came to an end, and the tension on the fronts in Donbass increased dramatically again. At the weekend, the number of attacks by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, according to the DPR Defense Ministry, again came close to a thousand per day. Kiev also returned to the active use of artillery and tanks along the entire front line.

In total, as reported by the authorities of the Republic, over the past week the number of Ukrainian attacks exceeded 3,000, with most of them made with heavy artillery.

According to the DPR Ombudsman, in the week 12 people were killed in the Republic, including a civilian, who was carrying out repair works on the territory of the Donetsk airport. 18 people received injuries, 4 of them civilians.

One of the civilians received severe shrapnel wounds when an artillery shell hit his house. There was also shrapnel wounded a woman who was traveling in a minibus from the DPR territory to the Kiev-controlled area. Eyewitnesses reported that the minibus came under fire from the Ukrainian side, when it was in the no man’s land, between the Ukrainian checkpoints and that of the DPR.

The DPR authorities argue that Kiev is carrying out particularly intense bombardments in the Donetsk and Gorlovka direction, deliberately destroying civilian homes and infrastructure.

In particular, the mayor of Gorlovka reported that the northern outskirts of the city, located 200 meters from the contact line, are experiencing ongoing problems with water and electricity, due to incessant attacks from the Ukrainian side. Last week, only for one night the shelling from the Ukrainian positions led to six disruptions in the water supply. When repair crews come to the spot, Ukrainian snipers open fire on them.

During another bombardment of Donetsk at the end of the week, there were damaged power lines, which resulted in about 200 miners trapped underground. The power supply of the mine was restored only the next day, after which the miners were brought to the surface.

In just a week, according to the DPR authorities, as a result of attacks on the Ukrainian side, there were damaged 44 houses, 26 of which were completely or partially destroyed.

In the south of the Republic, the situation on the front was not so hard, but, nevertheless, residents of villages near Dokuchaevsk had to spend the night before the weekend in cellars. Residents of the city spent that night in readiness to go down to shelters. According to them, the children went to bed in hallways, which are the safest place in urban apartments.

Soldiers of the LPR army also reported that the Ukrainian military do not open fire at their positions, but at localities situated behind them, in order to provoke the army of the Republic to open return fire.

The DPR military authorities also suggested that the sharp increase in the intensity of fire on the Ukrainian side could allow Kiev to hide a huge number of non-combat losses in the Ukrainian army.

According to the DPR intelligence, last week, in one of the AFU units, during the shelling with a 152mm MSTA-B cannon, occurred an ammunition detonation. In social networks volunteers wrote that the Ukrainian military had tried to charge into the cannon two shells at once. As a result of the detonation, 11 Ukrainian soldiers were killed and 18 wounded, with one cannon destroyed and another three damaged.

In addition, as reported by the DPR intelligence, in another Ukrainian unit a soldier killed his commander-nationalist, as a result of a conflict that stemmed from the soldier’s refusal to open fire on peaceful localities of Donbass. The DPR intelligence sources on the ground reported that the command is preparing to withdraw the unit, completely demoralized and refusing to fight, from the front line.

The Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine said live on the “112” TV channel that the number of non-combat losses in the Ukrainian army had already exceeded a thousand of soldiers.

There also came out new information about the cover-up by the Ukrainian side of their dead. The director of a mine, one part of which is located in the DPR and the other on the Kiev-controlled territory, said that the enterprise continues to operate in spite of the incessant shelling. The miners reported that underground they can clearly smell the putrid stink wafting from the far end of the horizons. It looks like that the Ukrainian side is simply dumps the bodies of their dead soldiers in the pits.

At the same time, Kiev still continues to deliver to the contact line military equipment and personnel. Over the past week, the DPR intelligence reported on the arrival of dozens of Ukrainian heavy mortars, tanks, motorized artillery systems, infantry fighting vehicles, 122 and 152mm artillery cannons, as well as MLRS “Grad” and trucks with ammunition in the Donetsk and Gorlovka segments of the front.

In the Lugansk segment of the front, soldiers of the LPR army fighters reported the arrival to the contact line of about a company of nationalists wearing the Ukrainian uniforms with “Right Sector» stripes on them.

The OSCE Mission observers noted in their weekly report the lack in the Ukrainian weapons storage sites of about 100 pieces of equipment, including 24 MLRS “Grad”, over 50 122 and 152mm motorized artillery systems and over 10 artillery and anti-tank cannons.

The DPR intelligence sources on the ground also reported another batch of US weapons delivered to Ukraine. On the basis of a technical agreement between the Defense Ministry of Ukraine and the command of the US Armed Forces in Europe, in the framework of the program “Partnership for Peace”, a charter flight accompanied by five American soldiers delivered to Lvov, a city in western Ukraine, about 1,000 5.56mm rifles, about 400 sniper rifles, over 500 machine guns and over 150 grenade launchers.

In addition, the DPR military authorities note the sharply increased activity of Kiev’s intelligence by UAVs. Over the past week, 11 Ukrainian drones were detected in the Donetsk and Gorlovka directions.

The OSCE Mission also presented a footage by their drone, confirming the ceasefire violations by both sides in the conflict. Curiously enough, the close-up recording was carried out by the OSCE drone mostly on the DPR territory.

Last week, the former deputy chairman of the Donetsk military and civil administration, governing the Kiev-controlled territory of the Donetsk region, said in an interview with the Ukrainian magazine “Krajina” that only 2% of the population supports the Ukrainian authorities. As for the rest, according to him, they ‘closed up: they work at enterprises, have almost no contact with Ukraine, watch Russian TV and socialize only among themselves’.

In response to the passive resistance of inhabitants of Donbass, the SBU intensifies the policy of terror. Residents of Stanitsa Luganskaya, a Ukraine-controlled town near the front line in the Lugansk region, report that the entire town is plastered with leaflets threatening with prosecution for “separatism”, which includes, in particular, empathy for the LDPR. Under the pretext of checking the information on the buying of votes at the recent local elections, residents of the town are massively summoned to the SBU, after which some of them disappear.

Meanwhile, nationalist units of the Ukrainian army already shell the territory of the Republics right in front of a camera.Polish journalists filmed the documentary “Fascists in trenches” on the positions of the “Azov” regiment in the south of Donbass, where one of the “Azov” radicals tells them that now the Ukrainians are fighting in the east of Ukraine for their nation. Just as they did under the leadership of Bandera in the 40s in the Volyn region where they massacred about 100,000 Poles.

The crew of the Ukrainian “1 + 1” channel visited the Ukrainian positions in the Gorlovka area, in the north of Donbass. In their report, the Ukrainian military say openly that “separatists” do not shell them, while they attack the DPR units daily, moving closer to Gorlovka with each passing day.

There is not a word about the Minsk Agreements in this report.

Two days ago, the Prosecutor General of Ukraine announced the launch of a hotline through which Ukrainians would be able to report information to investigators about people who had taken part in the organization of the referendums held in the DPR and LPR, and their financing.

The law on the amnesty for all those involved in the conflict in eastern Ukraine, required by the Minsk Agreements, does not exist even in a draft form.

http://novorossia.vision/en/kiev-bills-west-demanding-payment-for-war-against-russia/

Kiev bills West, demanding payment for war against Russia

The Western owners of the Kiev regime are, in many respects, far from understanding the situation in Ukraine. This stems from the Ukrainian foreign policy and diplomacy.

It was stated by Roman Bessmertny, a «hawk» politician and the former representative of Poroshenko at the Minsk negotiations, in an interview with the Kiev newspaper «Gordon”.

‘Unfortunately, they are fascinated by events that took place in the Balkans. Therefore, in many respects, they are far from understanding the situation in Ukraine. This stems from the Ukrainian foreign policy and diplomacy, which did not bring the real state of affairs at the initial stage of the conflict to an understanding of our partners. A Ukrainian in Donbas can not, pardon me, like an African, dip a finger in ink and put a mark in the bulletin. This is a stupid idea of the Ukrainians as a nation. There can be a tough pay for it,’ Bessmertny threatens the Europeans.

According to Bessmertny, the West is obliged to pay Ukraine and provide for it due to the fact that it is ‘waging a war against Russia’.

‘Naturally, we have a right to expect the whole world, especially Europe and the United States, to help us. To put it simply, it’s time we stopped playing games and persuading our opponents and allies, and very clearly told the world, ‘Pay us for the fact that we are at war with Russia! Otherwise, you will get a problem that you won’t be able to handle,’ the politician threatened again the Western countries.

The Ukrainian «hawk» is dissatisfied with the NATO position either.

‘The Warsaw Summit has shown that they have no answer to this question. I am now interested in the preparation of the program «Ukraine-NATO». If they continue previous talking about nothing, then Ukraine is on its own. We will find ourselves in a situation which Israel is in, ‘he complains.

Source

 

Making sense of the Turkish coup attempt

Making sense of the Turkish coup attempt

 

Incirlik, pron. In-jeer-lik in Turkish but generally mispronounced as In-ser-lik by US TV anchors.

 

It has been reported by various sources that US forces in Incirlik have been surrounded by Turkish troops, although some reports now say that the standoff has been resolved.

The reason for this is that apparently, the recent failed coup against Erdogan has been attributed to the US, although this is a source of speculation. Some think Erdogan (pron. Er-do-an) himself staged the coup to consolidate his power and make himself a full-fledged dictator.

But all of this is secondary to the nitty-gritty fact that the US, via the CIA, USAID, the State Department, Soros foundations linked to the government, etc, has a long and sordid history of interference in other countries in an attempt to manipulate or overthrow governments and replace them with leaders willing to kowtow to Washington and spread senseless revolutions (which essentially started with the “Enlightenment,” as discussed here). The latest example of such US meddling may be the recent Brazil “legal” coup but no one can be sure. The latest documented example is the Ukraine debacle, with Asst. Secretary of State Victoria Nuland proudly announcing that the US had spent $5 billion of your money to overthrow a stable duly elected government and replace it with fascist-friendly “leaders” loyal to the US and EU. The net effect was chaos, with Ukraine now enjoying a standard of living that has been compared to that of Haiti.

Libya was another example. Further, the war in Syria can be traced back to the Arab Spring, a project sponsored by Washington and the EU that aimed to replace the stable democratic government of Bashar al-Assad with “moderate” Islamists and wound up spawning ISIS. Though the uprising has been portrayed as homegrown, numerous foreign fighters are involved. The US-sponsored and armed Islamist “rebels” recently beheaded a young boy. That is the new “democracy” sponsored by the US. Not the best publicity for US foreign policy, although good publicity is hard to come by.

This history of disastrous US-led interference goes back at least as far as the CIA-induced coup in Iran in 1954 that unseated a very popular secularist president, had him killed and replaced with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, a very unpopular man famous for torture and murder of his opposition. In 2013 the CIA admitted its involvement. Pahlavi was eventually overthrown by rebels loyal to the Khomeini, an Islamic fundamentalist and Iran has been a thorn in Washington’s side ever since. Without our interference, Iran could be under secular rule instead of being dominated by Islamic fanatics. Only the Wahhabist Saudi Rat Pack is happy about this situation, which makes Iran an outcast.

Other admissions by the CIA include its admission, in 2000, of involvement in the Chilean coup to overthrow President Salvador Allende in 1973. The barbaric Augusto Pinochet, who replaced him, was subsequently tried for human rights abuses.

Kosovo is another example of US meddling and has produced a Muslim state where historic churches have been razed or damaged and no Christian cemetery has been left unscathed. The story is completely covered up, perhaps because the truth would be too much of an embarrassment to the Clintons, who made the decision to invade this once-Christian country and carve out a caliphate. By a twist of fate, I seem to be the only Western blogger who has uncovered these uncomfortable facts, as reported here.

All of this horrible embarrassment owes to the geniuses in the US State Department, who think they can control the world but keep winding up with unintended consequences that badly damage US relations with other countries. They are godless manipulators who keep proving the existence of God, the only thing standing between them and success in their Satanic plans.

What is happening now in Incirlik, Turkey, is another unintended consequence of US policies, in this case, the policy of “isolating” Russia. In truth, we are isolating the US, slowly but surely, as one ally after the other turns away from Washington in horror and disgust (as when almost every US ally in the world joined the

Chinese investment bank AIIB against vociferous warnings from Washington—it was a soft coup that went virtually unnoticed in the msm).

Finally, since Russia seems to have at least some involvement in the counter-coup, it is highly relevant that the US, mostly via the CIA, was deeply involved in coups and subversion against Russia, because this meddling provides a motive for the Russians to help counter this Turkish coup. Thus, even if it turns out the US was not involved, the blatant, counterproductive interference in governments throughout the world for at least 60 years, much of it aimed at countering Russian influence, has made the world justifiably suspicious of US involvement in all coups and terror events everywhere.

The CIA has not yet admitted to its involvement in the troubles in Chechnya that led to war in that Russian region, but this story is well documented and has been reported in minute detail by Zero Hedge. There are few pertinent reports in the Establishment msm, but a few have appeared, for example, here, here and here, which support the Zero Hedge report (I say that because the rabid Neocons who run the lying US media keep pretending ZH is unreliable).

Again, there is no telling whether the US was involved in the coup against Erdogan, and that is not the point I want to make.

I think it is clear that the Russians warned Erdogan of the coup attempt. You will recall that a Turkish fighter plane had shot down a Russian jet over Syria and this had led to a catastrophic rift in Turkish-Russian relations. But there was too much at stake for both parties to allow this contention to continue. Russia had agreed to lay a gas pipeline across Turkey that would supply Europe. Turkey would have had a steady income from the profits of gas sales. That deal is back on the table now thanks to Putin’s willingness to forgive.

Almost miraculously, the Russo-Turkish relationship may have been saved by some stories, whether true or false, including the report that the pilot who shot down the Russian plane over Syria was not following Erdogan’s orders in so doing but had perhaps followed orders from the US. That pilot has meanwhile been arrested, suspected of complicity with the coup. The story that the pilot was working against Erdogan is possible if far-fetched. But truth is not what matters in this case to the parties involved, which are eager to mend fences.

Like so much of what has happened in world affairs, this renewed Russian-Turkish rapport can be classified as payback for US meddling. And it could change the geopolitical landscape in ways that Washington will regret. US ally and NATO member Germany is already feeling the bite, as reported here.

The lesson, again, is that attempts to manipulate geopolitical events will always fail.

But don’t expect the Neocon maniacs in Washington to learn it.

 

 

Next US president must understand the Putin Principle

The disarmingly simple Putin Principle in foreign policy

by Don Hank

One of the cardinal points raised by Sun-tzu in his “Art of War” is the proposition of knowing the enemy. I will take that a step further and say that sometimes knowing the enemy leads to the discovery that he is not the enemy after all. And one further step: to the discovery that one is one’s own enemy.

The US government is the classic example.

There seem to be an alarming number of people who actually believe that hoax email making its rounds claiming that Hillary’s emails have been hacked by Russia.

First off, the story originated with a well-known hoaxster with the pseudonym Sorcha Faal, who specializes in these Russian fairy tales.

Secondly, if Americans do not have the ability and resources to hack into Hillary’s server, how in heaven’s name would they be able to hack into the Kremlin server?

The Kremlin is not run like the Washington government. No official would dare to let down his guard enough for a Westerner to hack into Kremlin emails. The offender would not get a smack on the wrist, the way Hillary did. Russians are serious about their government. Sadly, Americans have degenerated to the extent that very few care any more or believe that any government could possibly be serious about protecting its people. Why would any government be more honest than ours?, they reason.

The whole idea behind this fake story is that the Kremlin wants to interfere in our elections.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You will recall that when Putin was asked his opinion of Donald Trump, he ventured to say that Trump was clever (Trump later expanded this compliment claiming Putin had called him a “genius”), but in his very next breath, Putin made it clear that Russia has a policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. He was thereby establishing an unmistakable contrast between Russia and the Washington government.

I will attempt in a few lines here to explain a somewhat complex cultural and political situation in Russia as well as the mind of President Vladimir Putin.

One of the most important things you need to know about Putin is that he is serious about government business. Unlike our demented officials, he does not play irresponsible games. I am just now reading his biography, and recently came across an anecdote about his early days in the KGB school in Leningrad, now Saint Petersburg (BTW, Putin was not a spy, but rather an intel analyst). A few of his class mates — senior classmen — were discussing a certain hypothetical order that they might receive in the field.

When it came his turn to add his opinion, Putin said “that order is illegal.” Their attitude was “so what? It is an order.”

He said, “it is still illegal.”

That brief anecdote speaks volumes about who Vladimir Putin is and why he is respected in his own country (his popularity is still in the 80% range) and. increasingly, abroad.

Now, taking this further, Putin saw many years ago that the Washington government lies and cheats. It makes its own laws as it goes and enforces laws that are not on the books. All illegal in the international sphere. (Example: James Baker promised Gorbachev that the US would never encroach on Russian borders. Once an agreement was reached with Russia regarding relations with the US, the US broke that promise, and it is still doing so, with NATO building up heavy forces along Russia’s western border). Americans have been brainwashed into believing that lawless behavior in Washington is a good thing because America is “exceptional.” But this slipshod attitude toward the serious matter of international law – which, after all, governs the circumstances that lead to either war or peace – has led to the near-total destruction of Kosovo (in case you missed these, see: http://laiglesforum.com/so-youre-fond-of-nato-eh-mr-cruz-check-out-these-videos-of-nato-in-kosovo/3690.htm and http://laiglesforum.com/look-whats-happening-in-the-european-region-that-nato-defended/3786.htm), Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Putin discovered long ago that the US was on the wrong track and set about to develop a strategic policy for his country that would restore legality to geopolitics and so impress the rest of the world that they would eventually trust Russia more than any other country. I like to call this policy the Putin Principle. The Kremlin calls it soft power.

It is the iron-clad implementation of this simple principle that led to Russia’s policies in Ukraine (particularly in the former Ukrainian territory of Crimea) and Syria.

The Western press and political class has brainwashed an astounding number of Westerners into believing that Russia is promoting lawlessness in these regions when in fact, even in its military operations, it is respecting sovereignty of nations and ethnic groups and their territories.

The West claims in unison that the accession of Crimea to Russia was an “annexation,” whereby Russia simply snatched territory in a selfish expansionist move. And yet no serious party in this same Western world protested the referendum in Scotland or claimed it was illegal. The US and Europe were all prepared to accept whatever the outcome might be, including Scotland’s separation from the UK, based on the principle that Scotland had a right to sovereignty, even though it was technically part of the UK. And once that vote became official, the Crimean people were free to accede to Russia.

Yet what was perfectly legal in Scotland was “aggression” in Crimea, even though over 90% of Crimeans (the vast majority of whom are Russian speakers and consider themselves Russian) voted in this referendum to break away from Ukraine – and for the same reasons that many Scots (just short of a majority) wanted to break away from the UK, namely, cultural identity.

Thus, by our own Western logic as applied to Scotland, what the Crimeans did was legal and not in any way reprehensible.

Russia simply accepted the will of the Crimean people and honored their sovereignty. But of course, Russia is illegal by definition in the West.

Likewise, in Syria – in contradistinction to the US, which waded into an internal conflict without any invitation from the Syrian people – Russia entered the conflict only when the duly elected president of Syria invited it to do so. In fact, it made a similar offer to the Iraqi government but stayed out of that conflict when the Iraqis declined the offer, choosing instead to allow the US to pretend to fight ISIS there and create one of their  trademark messes.

The “exceptional” US government went into Syria illegally while Russia entered as an invited guest. The US was exceptionally lawless. Yet it accuses Russia of “expansionism,” just as England – the most expansionist country that ever existed, touting an empire on which the sun never set – had once accused Russia of expansionism during the conflict with Turkey in the 19th Century.

Thus the West has always written its own laws as it goes, based on nothing but bare-faced propaganda.

Note that Putin not only wants to apply this more-righteous and in fact, more common-sense international policy of strict adherence to international law to Russia but at the same time, to use this higher virtue as an arm of soft power by contrasting it with the West’s ad hoc law of the Wild West. He and his government, often via the mouthpiece of foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, use every opportunity (eg, UN speeches, speeches before the Valdai Club, press conferences, interviews, RT) to drive this concept home.

The American public will perhaps be the last to grasp this simple concept, not because they are stupid but because they have been brow-beaten into feeling that facing the truth about foreign affairs is somehow unpatriotic. But elsewhere, including in Europe, there are high ranking actors who seem to understand it. And they respect Russia for what must be called a superior approach to geopolitics. After all, ISIS would not be a threat if the Russian principle had been applied in the West.

Normandy Four snub Obama

Normandy Four snub Obama

 

by Don Hank

The fact that Ukraine, Germany and France have agreed to meet with Russia in Paris on Oct 2 (see story linked below) without any kibitzing from Obama (not invited) is clear evidence that

1-Obama – not Putin (per the Neocon fable) is the one who is isolating himself with his uncompromising rigidity.

2-Putin scored points and changed minds at the UN debate on Monday.

3-Europe, while perhaps still wary of Russia, still considers it a negotiating partner, either despite of or – more likely – because of Putin’s bold military initiative in Syria – standing as it does in bold contrast to Obama’s inertness.

After all, as I have seen on European talk shows (Deutsche Welle, RAI Italia, TV 5 from France) since the Syrian air strikes, the Europeans – unlike the US – are more immediately concerned about the immigration crisis than any other aspect of the Syrian issue. No one — particularly not the US — has made any progress in stopping the terror that the refugees are escaping (and as Putin rightly suggested without naming names, ISIS is a US invention). Germany, which initially put on a show of compassion for the refugees, has seen violence (eg, against women, Shiites and Christians) and chicanery (false passports) among these refugees. Worse, their refugee welcome centers are overwhelmed and so are many public schools, unable to keep up with the demand for German language classes, etc.

American Neocons can sit down and moralize about Syria, pretending that the duly elected Assad is a “dictator” (while pretending that the Saudis and their unelected king are somehow democratic and more civilized – even as they bomb poor little Yemen to smithereens).

But Europe’s institutions are under siege and individual EU countries cannot reach an agreement even over whether to accept ANY refugees, let alone 10,000 a day. This is causing a rift that threatens the integrity of the Union.

Europe’s “leaders” are panicked and, Like him or hate him, they know that Putin is the one who has stepped into the gag and is helping to solve their problem (despite silly statements by Obama to the contrary). His prestige in Europe has undoubtedly gone up since the UN debates and the Syria initiative.

And our hapless White House resident said Putin needs to “become a little smarter”? LOL!

http://rbth.com/news/2015/09/30/normandy_four_meeting_in_paris_is_joint_initiative_of_france_germany_rus_49671.html

 

My critique of Paul Craig Roberts’ critique of Putin

My critique of Paul Craig Roberts’ critique of Putin

 

by Don Hank

 

Recently, Paul Craig Roberts wrote an article criticizing Putin for thinking he can partner with the US. Roberts thinks this is naive, and indeed it would be naive if Putin really thought that way. But he doesn’t (I make it a point to read all of Putin’s speeches and interviews in the original Russian, much of which is not reported in the West, which picks and chooses the items that, out of context, make Putin look worse. In fact, Putin is a gifted statesman and has crafted a winning strategy that most Westerners, and even many Russian analysts, fail to grasp).

Almost any Western analyst is going to fail when writing about Russia because Western thinking is not applicable to Russia or China and few can grasp Eurasian thinking unless they have lived in Asia, studied the cultures and can read the languages.

Westerners have been conditioned for years into believing that the world needs, and will always have, a hegemon who can simply punish countries that “misbehave” and straighten them out at its whim. It doesn’t have to be polite or apply time-tested standards of fairness, because the hegemon defines fairness as it goes. Thus the Western way that the US has modeled for the world is to simply boss other nations around in the crudest and rudest way — as Victoria Nuland did when she was interacting with some top level Russian diplomats, sneering that they had “lost” (referring to the Cold War), implying they must now come to heel and obey their masters. Putin, by contrast, is modeling a mature and professional approach that has a universal appeal.

Eurasians no longer believe in the hegemon fairy tale. They are busy reinventing mutual respect and sovereignty of nations and are in turn garnering the respect of the rest of the world. This fact is crucial to interpreting the actions of China and Russia. Heavy handed Western writers have been trying for years to drive a wedge between Russia and China by suggesting that one or the other will eventually try to gain the upper hand and become king of the world. Yet the harder these propagandists try, the closer they drive the two countries together — to the extent that they are nearly inseparable at this point. And by that I mean economically/financially as well as militarily. The US government still believes in the cave man approach but the Eurasians have discovered that treating people with respect garners respect for them. Why would they abandon this approach as long as it works?

So why does Putin keep trying to negotiate politely with the evil Washington government as though he were dealing with peers, and why does he not use his enormous military power in Ukraine as Roberts (and, BTW, a lot of Russians) thinks he should?

Simply put, he is buying time, getting his last ducks in a row. (Note that each of Putin’s speeches gets a little bit stronger as he and his Eurasian partners gain strength).

Although Roberts was once assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy, oddly, he does not enter into economics and finance in his analysis, and yet, for Putin, the long term strategy is all about economics and finance.

Here is why I say Putin is buying time.

Russia and China are working feverishly to accomplish at least 2 goals behind the scenes:

1–Establish the RMB as the new world reserve currency.

2–set up a parallel SWIFT-like system of international money transfers, initially between the BRICS countries but later the world. See this, for example.

Why must the Eurasians do this?

Because even if they are superior to the US militarily, they need to become financially independent to prevent a lot of useless bloodshed. The US uses the dollar as a weapon, punishing its perceived enemies by freezing accounts, preventing transfers, imposing economic sanctions, seizing bank accounts (incl those of non-Americans living abroad) and generally seeking to paralyze them financially. Examples include the US-imposed record fine of $8 billion against French bank BNP Paribas in retaliation for that bank’s having made a dollar-denominated transfer to Iran (which was not illegal in France; the US’s rationale: since the transaction was denominated in dollars, it was illegal because the US is the legal owner of all dollars, the world reserve currency under the Bretton Woods agreement); and, on a smaller scale, seizure of foreigners’ cash, as with the IRS’s seizure of $8000 from the bank account of a Venezuelan man residing in Panama who had once lived in the US (not reported in the media. My banker told me the story).

The Eurasians, witnessing the results of this financial bullying, have made amazing strides in a very short time in achieving the 2 goals mentioned above, as I reported here and here.

As for the plan to make the RMB the fall-back reserve currency, that project is well underway, as shown in my translation and analysis here.

But one crucial step remains and that is to create and test the new Eurasian cash transfer system designed to bypass the US-controlled SWIFT system. Before this is accomplished, Russia and its Eurasian partners are still vulnerable to one last Western ace in the hole, and that is the freezing of money transfers anywhere in the world, as outlined here.

Reports on the target date for the new interbank transfer system differ widely but I think we can assume, based on Putin’s mild mannered behavior, that this is not yet accomplished.

Now just imagine if Putin had long ago played the military card in Ukraine and simply defeated the Ukrainian army that bombs its own citizens. Would US allies have rushed to join the Eurasian bank AIIB? They may have thought better of it knowing that Eurasia includes Russia. But Russia played the nice guy, bided its time, and these countries saw the AIIB as an opportunity to get out from under the obsolescent World Bank and IMF. The only main US allies who have not yet joined are Canada and Japan, and even that could change.

Putin plays a long game, a strategy virtually unknown in the West and not well understood even by the best American minds.

But not to fear: we will see it in action (non-military to be sure) soon enough.

So should we be worried?

Once the last piece in the Eurasian strategy is in place, I think we will see that Putin was not kidding when he talked about mutual respect. While the US has consistently sought to lord it over its trading partners, both militarily and economically, and has actually sought to bankrupt them via World Bank loans (see the book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins), the Eurasians focus on garnering and keeping the trust of all their partners. Unlike US elites, they are keenly aware of a key fact: The only way to get rich and stay rich is to trade with partners in ways that benefit both parties so that even poor partners become richer, boosting sales and loan transactions. And the best way to expand trade is to treat existing partners fairly and with respect. Making even one partner poor or showing a lack of respect undermines the trust that the rest have invested in you.

Now why didn’t we think of that?

 

The elites are doing an about face

 

by Don Hank   August 25, 2015

 

George Friedman, CEO of Stratfor, seems to be following the lead of other prominent Neocon elites. Recently, Kissinger and Soros both warned against taunting the Russian bear or escalating the Ukraine conflict. This was remarkable for them, because they had always generally supported, at least by their actions and words, the Wolfowitz doctrine of encircling Russia, and indeed, Soros even admitted that one of his foundations had aided in the Maidan coup, as I pointed out here.

Now comes George Friedman and joins them in backtracking, reluctantly admitting here that maybe attacking the Russian ally Iran was never such a brilliant idea. He says the problem with this idea is that the plan might fail and thereby strengthen the Iranian position while weakening Israel’s position. No kidding.

I wrote to George via his Stratfor site and asked why no one ever mentions Daniel Greenfield’s famous speech on the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) principle, which that author skillfully demonstrates would effectively prevent a nuclear power (he doesn’t explicitly mention Iran) from attacking another. Israel is known to possess a nuclear arsenal.

I had mentioned Greenfield’s comments on MAD here in the context of the rush to war against Iran – which, nota bene, even the Israeli military leaders knew to be an unnecessarily risky idea.

So when you say “I stand with Israel,” are you saying you stand with these wise military leaders who oppose war with Iran or with the minority who want to take that needless risk?

See the problem with that slogan?

Below is my response to George:

 

Thank you for this report.

I find it intriguing that no commentator ever mentions, in the context of Israel vs Iran, Daniel Greenfield’s speech on the MAD principle, which prevents nuclear powers from attacking each other. The Israeli government is aware of Greenfield’s writings and certainly, many have read this speech and know this theory makes common sense. Since it is known that Israel and the US are nuclear powers and that neither would sit back and let Iran attack Israel, Iran, in the real world, would never nuke Israel. Further, any nuclear explosion in Israel would kill and harm millions of Palestinians and other Arab neighbors. The whole world would turn against Iran and that would end Iran’s ability to ever trade with any country again. It would, in a word, be suicide. In other words, the war hawks in Israel are directing an inordinate and unjustified amount of time and energy at preventing an impossibility.

It is obvious to me that the only reason Israeli war hawks keep beating the drums in Iran’s direction is that they want to stay on the good side of the Saudis, who they perceive as having the power to crush them via their protégés like ISIS.

Why not address this side of the story some time? It would not hurt your credibility and would almost certainly boost your readership.

END OF LETTER

 

When you see the elites distancing themselves from their past strongly held positions, it’s not because they had a change of heart or “saw the light.” It’s because an external force or forces have made it impossible to sustain those positions and they woke up to this reality.

Despite all the setbacks that Eurasia (mostly Russia and China) have suffered (such as the recent collapse of the Chinese stock market), this region has so far avoided, for the most part, the extravagance of Western Keynesianism – unbridled money printing, borrowing more than they can ever pay down or back to pay for reckless spending – and despite the “socialist” tag, neither of them spends, as a percentage of GDP, even a fraction of what Western “developed” countries spend on welfare or social programs. The Neocons haven’t a leg to stand on, and now the upper echelons aren’t in fact standing.

Further, Eurasia has managed to demonstrate the vast potential of its economic power and prestige, for example, via the new investment bank, the AIIB, to most of our “allies,” over 50 of which became founding members, as I pointed out here.

On top of that, Russia and China have been doing impressive joint military exercises lately, demonstrating not only that they possess the hardware to back down any opponent, but that they are a team. I am amused at analysts who discuss Russian military capability in great detail without ever mentioning that there is in fact no such thing as the “Russian” military. In today’s world, there is only a joint Russian-Chinese military that we must contend with – and get along with, like it or not. And while there are still US “allies,” most are only reluctant and leaning away from the constant wars made in USA.

I say all that to remind you of why the elites, like Soros, Kissinger and Friedman, are changing their tune. They simply have no choice. Reality is facing them like a brick wall, foiling their schemes of world dominance. I say this cautiously, but it would seem that Neoconservatism is dead for all practical purposes.

The elites, who had everything to lose, were the first to notice the tectonic plate shift in geopolitics.

The rest of America needs to pay attention.

 

Are you wasting money on one of those “specialized” news sites?

Are you wasting money on one of those “specialized” news sites?

 

Don Hank

 

I recently had a complaint about a comment of mine on my private forum (applicants may apply at zoilandon@msn.com) regarding Stratfor, which I said was a propaganda outlet. A reader was very upset and said that he had worked with companies that paid money to subscribe to Stratfor for information that helped them plan economic strategy. The implication was that they could not be a propaganda outlet if serious companies paid them for hard to find information. I do want to point out that the msm are also charged with being a propaganda arm of the US government. This does not mean they are literally paid hard cash for government-favorable reporting. It goes much deeper than that. What I call “propaganda” is what we call the oficialista viewpoint here in Latin America, for example. It is a viewpoint that is inhaled with the air that people, especially journalists, breathe. Anyone expressing a contrarian viewpoint is persona non grata in government circles and risks not getting invited to official press conferences – or worse. Thus there is a constant inflow and outflow of the officialist viewpoint at outlets like Stratfor. No one has to bribe or pay them to parrot the official party line. It is in their blood stream.

The Stratfor article I was commenting on was one in which the author was fretting that Latvia had a pro-Russian political party that was rapidly growing, raising “concerns” as to what Russia might eventually do.

Of course, the real concern for those who like democratic systems would be that some tyrannical outsider might try to force Latvia to remain aligned with the West despite its desire not to – just as the East of Ukraine is being forced to go along with the wishes of Western Ukraine and the EU-US-NATO bloc. (And yet, Scotland gets to hold a referendum and no one in the Western world accuses them of illegal behavior for breaking away from a sovereign country, ie, the UK).

The Western press, whether a for-profit geopolitical analysis site like Stratfor or the msm, never misses a chance to focus on what evil deed Russia may do but almost never focuses on what might make an EU member like Latvia want spontaneously to align with Russia and eventually drop out of the EU. The real issue, left unmentioned, is not what Russia will do but the domino effect of countries like Latvia harboring anti-EU Russia-friendly parties which are growing in leaps and bounds. These include the UK, Holland and France, countries that if they should drop out – or I should say when they drop out, will completely sink the entire EU grand projet. (Don’t worry, though. Your favorite pay-to-read site will never annoy you with that piece of trivia). Once the EU falls, as it must, that will not be Russia’s fault. If Russia fills the trade vacuum, that is hardly an act of war. It is what we used to call the free market back when there was one.

But the folks at Stratfor think that the Latvian development is about Russian misbehavior.

And you know what irks me no end?

In stark contrast to the very localized development in Latvia, which is none of our business, there is a worldwide development that is about Russia – and also about China and eventually the rest of the BRICS countries – a development that is our business and the business of Stratfor subscribers, like it or not, and that development is dedollarization, which if the msm is doing its job of blacking it out properly, you probably have never heard of.

Dedollarization, the movement that could destroy the US economy, is well underway and includes not only the 5 BRICS members but also Japan, some African countries and some European countries, like France (see my sampler of foreign press articles below). Why France? Because a French bank was soaked a world record fine a while back for trading with some US-blacklisted countries and they are getting fed up with the bullying.

Hey, Stratfor, want something to warn your subscribers about?

How about warning them about dedollarization and the US’s suicidal practice of imposing gargantuan fines on foreign banks at the whim of the US government? Or the practice of provoking Russia by siding with known fascists in former COMECON countries that they still want to trade with. Dedollarization is the chickens coming home to roost. Oh, but that’s embarrassing for the US elites who implement these suicidal policies.

Besides, Russophobia, a popular form of racism, is all the rage in Washington, and Russia is the whipping boy du jour. More to the point, in a country where Russophobia is the official fare, it would be embarrassing to admit that Putin turned the tables on the dull witted Western elites with a brilliant answer to the sanctions against Russia, namely, dedollarization of international trade – the use of currencies other than the dollar to transact.

It is vital for you to know something that the msm will never tell you: there are 2 reasons that the USD is still worth money:

1. Since the Bretton Woods agreement, the world is obliged to use the USD in international trade; and

2. The US military.

Dedollarization is the start of a process that will slowly erode these 2 factors.

With all this in mind, I went to the Stratfor site to see how many articles they had relating to dedollarization, a phenomenon poised to kill the USD and hence bring hyperinflation to the US. (Dear Stratfor readers: don’t you suppose a bankrupted USA full of hungry people might be just a wee bit more important than some folks in the mini-country of Latvia who prefer trading with a stable country like Russia – which has a capitalist economy without the impediment of Keynesianism and whose debt, unlike ours, is only a modest fraction of GDP?).

I can’t tell you how unsurprised I was to find the following using “dedollarization” as the search term at the Stratfor site:

 

Argentina, Brazil: Countries Plan To De-Dollarize Commerce

Argentina and Brazil plan to de-dollarize commerce in their countries in the first part of 2008 to…

 

That’s it. So if I am a Stratfor reader, I am led to believe that dedollarization is a South American phenomenon, confined to Argentina and Brazil. Meanwhile Europe is teetering on the brink of dedollarizaton, African countries are dedollarizing, and China, Japan and Russia have already taken that route in major international transactions. Now remember: Stratfor charges money to its subscribers for refusing to give them vital information that the long term investor can hardly be without!

But you are not alone, Stratfor. Guess how many articles the writer-for-hire Wall Street Journal had relating to dedollarization when I performed that search? Ready for this? Here ya go:

 

SEARCH

Advanced Search

Sorry, there are no results for your search query, please try another search.

ROFL! I love this stuff!

For good measure, I decided I might as well try the pay-to-read New York Times. Since they peddle these big thick wads that take whole forests for a week’s worth of news, why they would surely carry something about dedollarization, wouldn’t they?

Sure.

Here is what the internal search engine managed to dredge up:

 

Challenge for Peru: Shoring up sol

“Dedollarization has been a very slow process,” Peru’s central bank president, Oscar Dancourt, said. “But we’re making progress, we’re on the …

So if we trust Stratfor and NYT, dedollarization is only happening in South America. And if we trust WSJ, it doesn’t exist. Nothing to worry about. Certainly not the nail-biting that Latvia’s growing anti-EU party will cause those Stratfor subscribers, who apparently all hold mostly EU bonds in their portfolios and whose worst nightmare is a coup in Latvia. The Russkies are coming! The Russkies are coming!

Now, if you don’t like the word “propaganda,” don’t use it. In fact, you may, if you like, send me your suggestions for a word that better fits an international news analysis site that keeps vital information away from the reader while plying them with news about the internal politics of one of the smallest countries in the EU – and spinning even that tidbit to blame it on Russia, the whipping boy of the officialistas in Washington, DC. But just because our government is running a hate-Russia campaign does not mean that Stratfor is deliberately giving Washington what it wants, does it? Of course not. It could be just a remarkable coincidence. Yeah.

So omitting that harsh word “propaganda,” would you at least admit that the media, even the subscription-only media that soak you plenty for their gems of hard-to-find knowledge that is all over the internet for free, are at least keeping important news – and I’d have to say the most important news – safely away from your eyes?

Finally, for those who never heard of dedollarization (how would you know from the msm if even outlets specialized in international economic news don’t carry the story?), I will admit that my information on the subject originally came from sites like The Economic Collapse, FedUpUSA and Zero Hedge. I trust these sites because, for one thing, they quote sources, and for another, they don’t sound like a broken record cut in Washington. Nonetheless, for the hard core doubters, I was challenged to do my own search of the world press on dedollarization, just to make sure you wouldn’t think I make stuff up. Below is a list of links amounting to no more than about 1% of the dazzling array of foreign articles on dedollarization that I found in German, French, Spanish, English and Chinese – and I’m talking about the real dedollarization, not obscure events localized in South America but an economic freight train bearing down on you and me as I type. I skipped Russian this time even though that is one of my primary sources for this information. That’s because the American public is trained like Pavlov’s dogs to reject all things Russian and there is little point sending the reader to, say, Russia Direct or the like because, unlike our reliable msm, Russian news is pure “propaganda,” right, Sheeple?

Oh, and did I mention that, despite the fact that Stratfor charged readers for its “news” report on Latvia, that story was all over the internet, here, for example, and wouldn’t have cost the subscribers a dime to get all the details. Without the racist anti-Russian propaganda.

 

Germany:

I first searched the word for dedollarization, Entdollariserung.

My goal was to find sources that did not quote the usual US blogs on this subject because, while I personally have the highest regard for the 3 blogs mentioned above, the elites want us to believe that only “bona fide” sites like WSJ or NYT are worth quoting. So while some foreign sites run translations of Tyler Durden or Michael Snyder on this subject, I chose to skip those and picked sites like this one:

http://www.contra-magazin.com/2014/06/die-entdollarisierung-der-russischen-wirtschaft-schreitet-voran/

 

The below German language article cites ITAR-TASS quoting the Russian Central Bank office and also quoting Vladimir Putin in Shanghai following a talk with Xi Jinping announcing closer cooperation between the central banks of Russia and China. (I found references to this well-known conference in several languages).

http://freies-oesterreich.net/2014/08/10/russland-und-china-wollen-bilateralen-handel-kuenftig-nicht-mehr-ueber-dollar-abwickeln/#more-2513

 

How about a French site discussing how BRICS countries and France are weighing the possibility of dedollarizing due in part to the draconian fines imposed by the US on French banks (for doing things that are legal in France!)?

http://resistanceauthentique.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/laffaire-bnp-paribas-et-la-dedollarisation-du-monde/

 

Central Bank of the Congo is dedollarizing (report in French):

http://tsimokagasikara.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/rdc-un-pas-vers-la-dedollarisation-une-nouvelle-reglementation-de-change-a-la-bcc/

 

Angola bank is dedollarizing (report in English):

http://www.portalangop.co.ao/angola/en_us/noticias/economia/2014/5/26/Reserve-bank-denies-report-foreign-currency-shortage,77c30ca5-8603-406c-b65d-d2e45b453b39.html

Quote: The official said that the economy is in a course of stability and there is a set of measures that have been taken aimed at the maintenance and sustainability of the framework which is the process of de-dollarisation of the economy, started four years ago.

 

El País, In Spanish, reporting directly on meetings of BRICS in Fortaleza, Brazil, where dedollarization was being planned:

http://www.portalangop.co.ao/angola/en_us/noticias/economia/2014/5/26/Reserve-bank-denies-report-foreign-currency-shortage,77c30ca5-8603-406c-b65d-d2e45b453b39.html

 

BRICS countries “must continue dedollarization” (report in Portuguese)

http://www.efe.com/efe/noticias/brasil/economia/brics-paises-emergentes-devem-prosseguir-com-desdolariza-economia/3/2019/2269481

 

Japan, China, dedollarizing

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Kosuke-TAKAHASHI/3769

 

I think you can see the advantage of having access to the multilingual press. Monolingualism is a bit of a hindrance these days if you want to know what is going on in the rest of the world that might just affect you. Especially if you are a subscriber to “specialized” news sites like Stratfor, Wall Street Journal or New York Times, that seem to have trouble reading any language.

SOVEREIGNTY: BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

 

BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

By Bernard CHALUMEAU

The treaties of Westphalia and the genesis of International law.

 

Like all French school children, we are aware that the Treaties of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War, which began with the defenestration of Prague in 1618, giving France the Three Bishopricks of Metz, Toul and Verdun  of the Holy Roman Empire.

However, let us take a closer look because there was much more to it than this:

These treaties are constituted of several agreements signed between the parties to the various conflicts:

– On January 30th, 1648, in Münster, the treaty between Spain and the United Provinces ended the war of Eighty Years.

– On October the 24th, in Münster, the treaty between France and the Holy Roman Empire ended the Thirty Years War, to which was added an act by which the Holy Empire gave to France the three Bishopricks of Alsace, Brisach and Pignerol, and another by which Emperor Ferdinand III, the archdukes of Austria, Charles, Ferdinand and Sigismund gave Alsace to France.

– On October 24, in Osnabrück, it also ended the 30 Years War.

-On July 2,1650, in Nuremberg, the two agreements between the Holy Empire and France and between the Holy Empire and Sweden relating to the enforcement of the peace.

These treaties were the bases for the organization of Germany up to the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.

Unfortunately, most school texts fail to indicate that the principles of international law were born on the date these important treaties were signed.

The object of this article is not to describe the very complex progress of the Thirty Years War (1618-1848) where many conflicts pitted the Hapsburg of Spain and the Holy German Empire, supported by the Roman Catholic Church, against the Protestant German States of the Holy Empire allied with the nearby European powers with Protestant majorities, United Provinces and Scandinavian countries, as well as France, which intended to reduce the power of the Hapsburgs on the European continent.

However, one must bear in mind that it was the most dreadful slaughter of the entire 17th century, which killed several million men, women and children.

Since the demography of Europe was seriously affected, the belligerents thus looked for ways and means to avoid a recurrence of such horrific massacres.

The negotiations of these treaties lasted a long time (from 1644 till 1648), because it was necessary to establish new modes of relations between States with a view to limiting wars and to strengthen “the law of nations.”

In his work “The six books of the Republic”, published in 1576, the famous French lawyer Jean BODIN (1529-1596), had published his thoughts on public law, “res publica,” and on the powers of the king, as the first legal principles of sovereignty: “Sovereignty is the absolute  and perpetual power of the State, which is the greatest power to command. The State in the person of the monarch is supreme inside its territories, independent of any high authority, and legally equal to the other States”

Further, the Dutchman Hugo Grotius published in 1623 a work entitled “De Jure Belli et Pacis,” which proposed the establishment of a “mutual association” between nations, that is to say an international organization, thereby laying the groundwork for a code of public international law. Their ideas were intended to guide the negotiators of these treaties in establishing what has conventionally been called since that time “the Westphalian system” as a guideline for the concept of modern international relations.

– The balance of powers, meaning that any State, large or small, has the same importance on the international scene (For example, see the Article CXXII of the Münster Treaty in Old French below)

– The inviolability of national sovereign power (See article CXII of the Treaty below).

– The principle of non-intervention in the affairs of others (see article LXIV of the Treaty below).

Since the treaties of Wesphalia, a new actor succeeds the division of the power between villages, duchies and counties, namely, the modern State.  The world is organized with States whose sovereignty must be respected by the bordering states by virtue of the Westphalian concept of the border. International relations become interstate and the respected borders guarantee the peace.

These treaties proclaim the absolute sovereignty of the State as the fundamental principle of international law.

Europe becomes a set of States, having precise borders, recognized by others, in which the prince or monarch exercises his full and complete sovereignty. The characteristics of these modern States include the constitution of permanent armies and the expression by the elites of the fact of national existence. In these States, language appears as a factor of unity.

The Westphalian principles subsequently contributed to the emergence of the idea of the Nation States in the 19th century, as well as the principle of nationalities, where every National State enjoys, within its own borders, complete independence, being provided with the highest possible form of sovereign power with its own army, its own currency, its justice system, its police and an economy, allowing it to live as independently as possible of the other States.

Later the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, signed on December 26th 1933, would add four essential elements:

 

“To be sovereign, a State must have :

–          a permanent population.

–          a defined territory.

–          an operational government.

–          the capacity to enter directly in relation with other states.” 

 

It added a fundamental clause:

The political existence of a state is independent of its recognition by other states.

The United Nations, undoubtedly horrified by this measure, which it considered too Westphalian for its taste — since it paved the way for the emergence of multiple large or small States — then hurried to add notions of “internal sovereignty” and “external sovereignty,” so that, to be sovereign, States must have, in addition to their capacity to exercise their power over the population inside their territory without any outside constraint, the need to be recognized as sovereign States by the other States of the international system.

 

The law of nations (Jus gentium ) or public international law:

Established under the Treaties of Westphalia, this law governs the relations between the subjects of this legal system, which are States and international organizations.

A subject of international law must comply with this law and must be able to benefit from it. In the beginning, the State was the only subject of international law. But this concept became obsolete, because, after1815, the States found it necessary to join together in international organizations, gradually acquiring the status of legal subjects. Thus, the United Nations became, like the EU and other international organizations, subjects of derived law (generally referred to in American English as case law).

Introduction of the right of intervention in international relations:

Unfortunately, since the end of World War II, the increase in the number of treaties between States of the western world tended to suppress Westphalian principles by considerably developing their military, economic and financial interdependence.

At the end of the Cold War, the United States of America, an enormous consumer of energy and raw materials, desiring to extend its hegemony throughout the planet and to get energy and raw material at the lowest possible prices, noticed that the Westphalian ban on intervention in other States thwarted its designs.

The United States of America felt obliged to find a way to by-pass Paragraph 7 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, which stated:

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,” summing up the very Westphalian-sounding article 8 of the Agreement of Montevideo, which banned intervention in the internal affairs of a State.

Based on the ideas of persons such as the philosopher Jean-François Revel in 1979 and of Bernard Kouchner, a new “right” called the “right of intervention,” was concocted, i.e., the recognition of a right of one or more States to violate the sovereignty of another State, within the framework of a mandate granted by a supranational authority.

It was a wondrous invention which allowed:

–          to abolish Westphalian principles,

–          to add the notion of supranationality,

–          to intervene on the territory of any State even against the will of that State,

–          to establish world governance under the aegis of ad hoc international organizations,

–          to subjugate the weakest States to one or more stronger States,

–          to establish the hegemony of the US government.

The precious Westphalian principles were thereby overturned and the whole world returned essentially to the monstrous situation of the Thirty Years War.

The desired ad hoc international organization in the hands of United States of America was found, namely, the UN. All that was needed was the pretexts for war.

No problem:

– The US oligarchy rushes to the target State to be destabilized, a CIA team, which will increasingly include, or be supplanted by, a Soros foundation, USAID or the like, providing camouflage in the form of “private” intervention.

– This team, relying on existing opposition or opposition to be created from whole cloth in the current regime, develops a “National Liberation Front” or the equivalent thereof.

– It equips it with the necessary weapons and bolsters it with troops, usually drawn from the Islamic sphere of influence.

– Thanks to mass media under its control, it floods public opinion with information and images, often doctored, that overwhelm the government in power.

– All that remains is for the UN to pass a “resolution” allowing the armed forces of several States, mainly of the EU and the US, to come to the aid of the young “National Liberation Front” and oust the current regime.

This system worked very well for the interventions in Romania, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Darfur, Ivory Coast, Libya, Syria, Nigeria, Ukraine, etc., spreading war throughout the planet.

The right of the bankers replaces the right of the people :

Thanks to the “legality” of the UN ad hoc resolution, the armed forces deployed in the target State destroy a maximum of infrastructure, such as power plants, factories, bridges, roads, railways, airports, runways, and so on…

Thus, when the target State is “pacified,” American companies share in the juicy reconstruction contracts. The new leader of the regime, set up by the “liberators,” is very helpful in awarding these contracts to said companies. At that point, the target State, its population and resources are under the control of the US oligarchs.

These operations are managed behind the scenes by bankers, generally US bankers. The bankers finance both belligerent parties, enjoining the winner to honor the loser’s debts. They finance the military-industrial lobbies committed in the conflict and manage the process in such a way that it is drawn out as long as possible.

So, the bankers win every time!

The superiority of the right of the bankers over the right of the people was established in Europe by the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 by the introduction of a single currency, the “euro,” controlled by the European Central Bank, completely independently of the Member States’ governments under Article 108 of that treaty.

ARTICLE 108

 

When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by this Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB, neither the ECB, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, governments of the Member State or from any other body.”

All European treaties since then have reinforced those provisions, resulting in an impoverishment of populations subject to this single currency and complete submission to a new slavery for the benefit of bankers.

It is no longer states that control the banks, but the banks that control the states.

Evidence of this is on flagrant display throughout the world, notably in Cyprus where depositors were ruined by bankers with the support of the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission in Brussels and the Central Bank of the EU.

 

The objective of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, expressed below:

 

“Let me produce and control the issue of currency of a state, and I do not care who can make laws”

 

has been achieved!

Having succeeded in removing Westphalian principles from international law, the bankers rule the planet, start wars wherever and whenever they want and enslave the people of the world.

Conlusion:

The Westphalian system described herein clearly shows that whoever advocates it, in France or elsewhere, i.e., patriots and the sovereignists, are peace activists! They are the future of nations. That is why the banker-controlled mass media are bent on either contradicting them with outright lies, or silencing them.

To secure peace in the world, Wesphalian principles must be restored!

History in fact shows that, as long as these principles were respected, the world (ie, Europe initially and then throughout the world from the 19th century onward) experienced overall stability, but when they were abandoned by a State or group of States, horrific conflict occurred again.

Many historians believe that the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 was responsible for World War II by violating Westphalian principles, substituting a collective security.

That is why I urge all patriots and French sovereigntists, particularly French youth, to enter into Resistance.

I invite them to partner with the youth of Europe and the rest of the world to fight by all possible means to restore Westphalian principles everywhere based on respect for the inalienable sovereignty and independence of States.

There is not only an absolute necessity to recover their freedom, their way of life, the kind of society they want to live in to escape this new slavery, but also and above all, the need to preserve their property, their lives and those of their descendants, who are, as we can see today, physically threatened.

As for me, I remain at their disposal to help them while strength and breath shall last.

French patriots!

The wind of hope is rising! It is bringing back our France! It is bringing back our freedom!

Bernard CHALUMEAU

Translation by Bernard Chalumeau, translation editing by Don Hank